Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi! How are you? Please visit Deletion review for Hiroyuki Tsuchida An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hiroyuki Tsuchida. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you just removed my request at the whitelist board. Someone at the blacklist board similarly did not want to touch this and told me to come to the whitelist board, as I noted in my message. Can you tell me where this problem goes? I am facing the blacklist blocker and I want to discuss having this block removed in the right forum. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hasty, and I apologize. I restored your whitelist request to the proper section on the page and declined it, suggesting an alternative. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not have been better to refactor the misplaced, but possibly useful first part of the IPs edit down to the bottom of the talk page, rather than just destroying it? Rather bitey, yes? Hope your day improves... Shenme (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not bitey. Bitey would have involved scolding the user. It was an unconstructive comment, placed disruptively in the middle of a conversation, and compounded by further edit to add disruptive formatting. You are welcome to restore it if you disagree. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said you were going to try removing it from the blacklist. Did you try? It still is on the list (or is on the list again). Rmhermen (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Wine for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC) abigail48 added a publication to the Clive Matson article208.64.74.176 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's Laura again. As you can see from the "history" of our page, there are people that try to make damage to our page... AGAIN!!! Now can we have a FULL PROTECTION as required? Or a protection for a month, as you did in August? please, it's important for us to prevent our page to the crazy people spreading false word! Thanks for your help! --Limbagio (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you need to be aware of some things:

• It is not "your" page. You have no claim on it. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and read it carefully. This is a policy on Wikipedia, not just a guideline.
• Requests for protection are to be made at WP:RFPP. In this case, a request for protection would be declined because it does not qualify. There's a distant chance that it could qualify for semi protection.
• However, there has been no disruptive activity recently. None. All I see are people attempting to add material in good faith. You might want to read the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith also.

If you have disagreements with others, you discuss those disagreements with them, either on the article talk page or on their own user talk page. That's what talk pages are for. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what edits were made prior to this speedy deletion, but that article has been around for quite a while and the book should pass notability. If it needs some parts re-worded, that should be addressed in the article. I'd like to see if you'll restore the article and the nominator, whoever that was, can go the regular AFD route and I can look to see what needs improved or corrected. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around for a while without ever establishing any evidence of notability. You're right though, it should go to AFD. Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you have deleted a page on actress Keki Adhikari. She is one of the prominent actress featured in lead roles in half a dozen movies. She is also a leading model in Nepal. She has more than 70,000 likes in Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/officialkekiadhikari) and almost 4000 followers in Twitter (https://twitter.com/KekiAdhikari). More info on the actress is also available in Keki.info, nepaliactress.com/. Thanks.

The article described her as an "upcoming actress", and offered no evidence of notability (Facebook likes and Twitter followers don't count). You can't have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article recently of a well known progressive metal band "Pagan's Mind". They have notability - being they've release 5 studio albums, and are signed to Limp Music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_Music). Their original article had a biography section which didn't belong on wikipedia, but the rest of the article should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efess (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring this page back. Pagan's Mind is a band that has made a significant contribution to metal and progressive rock genres. I was just visiting this page yesterday looking for information on the guitar player, and find it today to be deleted for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.208.180 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person who nominated the page for deletion evidently did not see any assertion of notability, or evidence of notability. I agreed that it qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Exactly which criteria in WP:BAND are met by this band? I saw no evidence of any.

Releasing 5 studio albums from their own studio or their own label isn't a claim to notability. Being signed to Limb Music isn't a claim to notability unless they have released at least two albums under that label, but there was no indication of that in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"..from their own studio or their own label isn't a claim to notability" - this is incorrect, they've released albums under that label and steamhammer records (a subsidiary of SPV Records), which gives them plenty of notability. Like I said, the article needed cleaning up, and to be clearer on their notability - but not deletion.

There are also wiki pages for the various albums this band put out which don't have a link back to the artist.

And the person who nominated the page for deletion was actually a buddy of mine who I showed the page to who thought the band was a local no-name band. Efess (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They released four albums on Limb Music, Celestial Entrance, Infinity Divine (remastered), Enigmatic Calling and God's Equation. They are currently signed to SPV/Steamhammer GmbH like you said, a record label which released albums for bands like Kamelot, Helloween and other well known metal bands. In the metal world there aren't many major record labels and you should know that. Pagan's Mind is no exception in the progressive metal world. They play mainstage on festivals and next year even have a headliner of a 2,5 hour set in America, even though they are from Norway. They will play the album Celestial Entrance in its entirety there, which is seen as a milestone. They have been in the charts multiple times. A certified gold record in Sweden. The drummer has played in a band called Firewind, featuring the guitarist of Ozzy Osbourne. Jorn Viggo Lofstad used to be part of JORN and Beautiful Sin, also notable metal bands. They have performed their song Search For Life on national television. Is this enough evidence for you that they are notable and deserve their wikipedia page? Because if not, then at least 50% of all metal bands wikipedia pages should be deleted. I agree the biography was not good, and needed changing, the rest should have stayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagansmind (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then indeed the band meets WP:BAND criteria. I'll undelete.

I do agree that over 50% of metal band articles on Wikipedia are vanity pages / fan pages that should be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amatulic - I wanted to let you know that I have changed the protection on the David Hallam article from PC-2 to semi-protection. I did make sure to review the OTRS ticket before doing so. PC-2 is not supposed to be used according to our protection policy (WP:PCPP), and it will still permit editing by unregistered or newly registered editors, which will remain in the history. If you review the editing history since that point, the main editor of the article is a newly registered account that added a lot of what appears to be quite promotional material; it was accepted by the reviewer per policy as it was not a BLP violation nor was it vandalism. I hope this makes sense; please feel free to respond here, or email me if you feel it more appropriate, if I've not provided you with sufficient information on my rationale.

And while I am here: Thank you very much for all your work on OTRS. It really does make a difference. Best, Risker (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I am ambivalent about PC protection anyway, and much prefer semi. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amatulic, can you please undo the deletion of the Dân Bắc Kỳ article temporairily please, because many of the diffs and edits on that article's edit history is associated with a group of sockpuppets, under the user Jspeed1310, which i need to complete the SPI report i'm currently filing. I just need the article back up for a short time until the SPI completes, after which it'll be free to be deleted permanently. Thank you! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to your user space: User:Nguyễn Quốc Việt/Dân Bắc Kỳ. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We are a mobile phone manufacturer based out of Miami, FL. We develop AWS devices for all of the prepaid carriers in the USA. Our devices can be found in over 20,000 retail stores across the country. Many people do not manufacture AWS devices so we want it known that our device is 3G on AWS bands. Currently, the device is available through T Mobile, Go Smart, Ultra Mobile, Ready Sim channels just to name a few. I have a spec sheet highlighting the AWS frequency and other features of the device to help with your review. Please let me know if I can provide you with any more information to help have our device approved. Thank you Samsocial (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely WP:CORP. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a publicity medium and should never be used for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comments. Most people in his situation have the sense to call attention to themselves. I think enough has been said--anything further would just encourage them-- and the community will decide on the items up for deletion at CSD and AfD, and DelRev if it comes to that. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's always a good thing when paid editors call attention to themselves. They invite close scrutiny, and either they mend their ways or end up blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djdevious regarding this user. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made a comment there. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fyi: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonita Platinum DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. This editor appears to be one of about two dozen editors collaborating with each other to create or improve business-related article. Unfortunately, their understanding of what "improving" an article or what a suitable new article is does not (yet) line up with reality. Ditto their understanding of what companies do and do not qualify for articles.

The ideal outcome is that all 24-or-so editors accept our help and channel their interest and effort into creating quality articles about notable topics and adding quality improvements to existing articles. This will take time and effort on their part and our part.

The short-term goal, well, my short term goal, is to let them know that we want them to continue editing, but that for now they need to take a step back and stop editing business-related articles until they better understand what is and is not appropriate to have in such articles.

Towards that end, I have asked for help at WT:WikiProject Business.

Doctree and Kudpung (Kupung is an administrator) are both already participating in the discussion. Your input would be valuable.

If he appeals his block denying he is a sockpuppet, consider unblocking him. If you have opened any SPI, ANI, or related discussions, could you cross-advertise those discussions to/from User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua, so that the discussions can all be moved to one place? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account because both HCW33 and Helen1023 identify as being a PhD candidate in Information Systems at the same university, the first initial is the same, and there is a high intersection of the same articles in the contribution history. This did not look like a collaboration to me. It looked like a WP:DUCK sock. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, this is one of those cases where, until there is an up-close investigation, this group (24+ accounts so far) look/quack both like collaborative editors cribbing off of and assisting each other and a bad-faith sock/meat farm. In fact, my initial reaction when I discovered the first few was to open an SPI. It was only after realizing that a few said they were students and the idea of a collaboration was plausible did I resume assuming good faith. Also, FYI, 220 of Borg opened a parallel discussion going on at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Group of New/Newish Editors Creating/Editing pages about companies about a day after I created User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. It looks like a significant a number of experienced editors are watching these new editors very closely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Amatulic: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I wonder if its not time to take this article and even the article on Daisaku Ikeda to a higher level in terms of moderation or supervision. Same goes for the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. With all due respect I try to keep a balanced view in my edits also when it comes to critical issues. I even refrained form editing on Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda in any major way lately but it just seems that some editors carry on with a white washing campaign and misinterpret alternative or critical views as an attack. As much as I like to contribute to Wikipedia in the English and German version the work in the English version especially makes one feel slightly frustrated.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia, with the largest audience, so it attracts a large population of special interests wanting to promote their point of view.

As far as moderation, it's on my watch list. I observed that much of the disruptive behavior (at least the persistent image removals) seem to come from anonymous IP addresses or unconfirmed accounts, so semi-protection is a good solution for that. These editors are always welcome to post edit requests on the talk pages.

I don't see recent disruptive activity on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism to justify protection at this time, but I have put them on my watch list. Semi-protection wouldn't do any good on Daisaku Ikeda because the disputants are all confirmed editors, the best recourse there, if disruption continues without resolution, is to request temporary full protection at WP:RFPP to force everyone to work out their differences on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. Its good to know that a few have the articles in question on their watch list though. A few of those who were persistent in their behaviour have been silent for a while. Thanks!--Catflap08 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Soka_Gakkai#Semi-protection. Kiruning (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the talk page! John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's been on my "to do" list for a long while. The archive bot won't archive any sections that don't have a date in the final signature, and the person who posted those never signed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:HCW33 is part of a class, and Helen is just another student in the class, so would you be able to unblock them? The professor currently is going to work with us on fixing this all up, so it would help if we could unblock the only person blocked in the class. Thank you, and have a wonderful day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this how...? I see no communication from HCW33, who has instructions on posting an unblock request, nothing on your own talk page regarding this situation, nothing on User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua where the activites are being recorded, nothing on his talk page, and zero communication from any of these socks with the Wikipedia community. Sorry, but this was a WP:DUCK. It smells so strongly of paid-editing sockpuppetry by a PR firm, I will need more explanation than your assurance before I unblock that account. I was about to block some more before you posted this note. I will refrain and wait for your response. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I am working with the education program with OhanaUnited and we started discussing offline about what to do here. I guess there is no rush in doing this, so we'll let you know what's up when we sort it out. Have a good day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know this from here and here. We're trying to get a hold of the professor but the indications suggested that they were not socking or paid editing (which were the basis of your original block). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. And yet, nothing specifically about HCW33. As I stated before, HCW33 has instructions on posting an unblock request. I have no assurance that this person is even a part of that group. If this group of students is truly interested in communicating with the community as claimed by the letter of that professor, then let's see some evidence of communication on publicly viewable talk pages, not copy/pasted emails. Wikipedia works by community interaction, not by back-room deals. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we were to be discussing sensitive information, such as the identities of these users, we should be doing it on-Wiki? Okay, I'll remember that the next time I work with editors who don't want their identities leaked to the entire internet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in personal details. I'm interested in seeing any evidence that they are making any attempt at all to work with the community on talk pages, discussing articles, guidelines, improvements, etc. And, posting an unblock request with an explanation. I see none of that. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most students I work with aren't as willing as your average editor, so this is not surprising. I am going to leave it here, but I just want to let you know that it would be actually surprising if they went through this approach, as very few students are willing to challenge authority, something which also is a major thing where these students come from. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what put you on the trail of Sleepfoundation? I'd just asked them to abandon that account! Hordaland (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It came up in an OTRS message some time back, so I put it on my watch list. It came up again in my watch list again earlier today, which prompted me to look at it, and I noticed all the edits by that account, so I soft-blocked it (meaning the person isn't prevented from creating a new account, and the IP address isn't blocked either). ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thanks. & thanks for definition of soft-block -- I'd wondered. --Hordaland (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheela armani, which you just deleted, has been recreated. Rosario Berganza 07:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and just as quickly deleted by Jimflbleak.

If it appears a third time, let me know and I'll salt it to prevent re-creation. Hopefully the user will get the message about autobiographies on her talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Here's another gem btw: Paul Assani. Rosario Berganza 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, someone zapped that while I was typing the message. ;) Rosario Berganza 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did use the talk page to explain why I thought deletion of the table comparing financial turnover to GDP was vandalism of the heart of the article on Financialization. Perhaps you failed to see it? Clearly, you do not address the issue I raised there. TonyWikrent (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek addressed the issues quite well in his replies to you on his talk page. Perhaps you failed to read them?

My point about using talk pages was that you're supposed to do that instead of revert-warring. I have also replied on the article talk page. If you want the table in there, do it properly with wiki-markup and citations, using information that isn't more than a decade out of date. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to this, please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. it is a primary source. Would you please revert yourself? Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a primary source according to MEDRS. However, MEDRS also says "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source." That is the case here. Therefore, I do not see how reverting my restoration of that content would improve the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree; this is not what MEDRS is about. I opened a discussion on the talk page; please come talk. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking to the page creator on my talk page. That's what I meant to happen by putting the talkback template on your page.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]